While retaining as much of its western territory as possible how would we get Rome to expand as far east as Alexander was able to?
An Alexandrian egomaniacal General who is given free rein (perhaps by an Emperor worried what he'll do at home) seems most likely. Also, the Parthians get buggered somehow, so Iran is open for the taking.
how would suez canal help at all in MesopotamiaSomehow build a suez canal.
That way, rome could conquer the Arabian peninsula and strike deep into mesopotamia and hold it.
After that, they could go into Persia and try to conquer all the way into Indi. .
It has been postulated that Trajan's Rome could've conquered Parthia. Keeping it is another story entirely.
Well Dacia was conquered purely for the gold. As soon as it was gone, Dacia was ditched. I would imagine that it would be the same with Parthia.
The hardest point is that Rome in 100 CE, must conquer not one, but two powerful empires. The Arsacid Dynasty of Eranshahr and the Kushanshahs. The Kushan in this period too, are certainly the more dominant between the Arsacid and them and in a more foreign climate.
Yeah because it was cheaper and easier to conquer Dacia than to do equitable trade with the tribes. Raiding them didn't give much value.Well Dacia was conquered purely for the gold. As soon as it was gone, Dacia was ditched. I would imagine that it would be the same with Parthia.
My point was that Persia isn't a random tribe so the modus operandii of the Romans doesn't work.
The wealth of Persia would be a temptation. And eliminating a rival.
And that "it's there, and next door". Which is usually enough for imperialism.
Well the whole Veni, Vedi, Vici saying really does sum up Rome's look on the world and empire. The fact that the (insert random Persian dynastic state) is the only real peer threat only makes it a worthy challenge.So basically typical Roman reasoning of “because we can.”